Posts tagged Origins

Over the last several weeks, loyal readers of this blog (if any remain…) will note that the focus of the majority of my posts have centered around web application coding techniques. While part of the reason for this is that I have been improving exponentially in my coding abilities over the last several months (not hard when one is going from zero to somethng…), the major impetus for these posts is simply that I post about what I am thinking as well as that to which I am devoting my time. Frankly, while I love theology deeply, I have not been devoting much time to it lately, partly out of necessity, partly out of lethargy.

The last week, however, I have been on vacation and, more importantly, sick. During this time I have had a lot of restless hours to quiet my thinking and devote mental energy to things other than web application code (even though that has still managed to creep in). In these hours of contemplation, I have come across what I believe could be a major diffusor of objections to big bang cosmology (BBC) and evolutionary biology (EB) in re: the relationship of God's activity to the More >

When, then, the question is asked what we are to believe in regard to religion, it is not necessary to probe into the nature of things, as was done by those whom the Greeks call physici; nor need we be in alarm lest the Christian should be ignorant of the force and number of the elements,–the motion, and order, and eclipses of the heavenly bodies; the form of the heavens; the species and the natures of animals, plants, stones, fountains, rivers, mountains; about chronology and distances; the signs of coming storms; and a thousand other things which those philosophers either have found out, or think they have found out. For even these men themselves, endowed though they are with so much genius, burning with zeal, abounding in leisure, tracking some things by the aid of human conjecture, searching into others with the aids of history and experience, have not found out all things; and even their boasted discoveries are oftener mere guesses than certain knowledge. It is enough for the Christian to believe that the only cause of all created things, whether heavenly or earthly, whether visible or invisible, is the goodness of the Creator the one true God; and More >

As anyone who reads this blog with any regularity (in spite of the inexcusable irregularity of my posts..) will know, I love subjects like cosmology, physics, quantum mechanics, etc. While I do not profess to have a working knowledge of any of these subjects (I really, really suck at math–there goes my dream of being a famous quantum physicist), I have read a fair amount of literature concerning them and have spent considerable time contemplating the relationship of discoveries in cosmology and physics to the task and meaning of theology.

This post is not about that kind of contemplation.

Rather, I really just want to talk about the issues that would, in my understanding, make time-travel incredibly difficult to conceive, much less actuate. Random, huh?

The classic conundrum of speculations about time-travel has been exhausted in literature, art, film, music, etc. Probably the most famous example is the movie Back to the Future. In this movie, Marty McFly is hurtled 30 years in the past while attempting to escape from terrorists (perhaps this could be a new Bush Administration policy). While still trying to understand what has occurred, Marty accidentally interferes with the first meeting of his then-teenage parents. Made to More >

On the heels of reading Greenes Fabric of the Comos, I decided to turn my attentions to a more theistically-oriented discussion of cosmology. Per my habit, I spent the last weeks worth of lunch hours sitting in Barnes & Noble, reading on a new book (for free, of course!).

For my selection, I decided upon Hugh Ross Creator and the Cosmos. Written many years ago, Ross released a third revised edition in 2001. However, as is typical with scientific literature, even content written within the last 5 years shows its dating with a vengeance.

Yawn…okay, enough with the uninteresting introduction. In a nutshell, Ross seeks to provide an apology for the standard model, big bang cosmology. As an aside, this is thoroughly fascinating, for hints within the same work indicate that he is concomitantly and vehemently opposed to standard views of evolutionary biology. Back to the discussion: Ross purpose in donning the apologists hat for the big bang, interestingly enough, is to prove that the picture of the universes origins provided by big bang cosmology lays out an inescapable conclusion of theism. However, Ross goes even farther, and tries to suggest that big bang cosmology requires the identification of the More >

About 2 weeks ago, while checking out the portfolio of a random web design firm, I ran across the website of an organization that was offering a free DVD which they claimed provided proof that evolution is wrong and that creationism is right. Unable to resist, I quickly surrendered my email and mailing address, and within 2 weeks (wow, what service!) I received my free DVD. Brimming over with excitement, I quickly abandoned my evening with family and popped it in the DVD player. I cranked the speakers to 11, grabbed a stiff glass of Diet Coke (on the rocks), and curled into my oversized leather couch, my eyes and ears prepared for outstanding revelations.

It turned out, to my immediate dismay, that this DVD was of a lecture series delivered by Kent Hovind, better known as Dr. Dino. For those who are familiar with Hovinds arguments, I need say little more. For those who are unfamiliar, imagine arguing with someone whose main line of debate is mischaracterizations, over-generalizations, and deflection through cheesy jokes, insults, and terrible clip-art-ridden power-point shows. Enough said.

As I watched and listened to the 129 minutes of Mr. Hovinds lecture, some things became immediately clear: More >

About 2 weeks ago, while checking out the portfolio of a random web design firm, I ran across the website of an organization that was offering a free DVD which they claimed provided â??proofâ?? that evolution is wrong and that creationism is right. Unable to resist, I quickly surrendered my email and mailing address, and within 2 weeks (wow, what service!) I received my free DVD. Brimming over with excitement, I quickly abandoned my evening with family and popped it in the DVD player. I cranked the speakers to 11, grabbed a stiff glass of Diet Coke (on the rocks), and curled into my oversized leather couch, my eyes and ears prepared for outstanding revelations.

It turned out, to my immediate dismay, that this DVD was of a lecture series delivered by Kent Hovind, better known as â??Dr. Dino.â?? For those who are familiar with Hovindâ??s â??arguments,â?? I need say little more. For those who are unfamiliar, imagine arguing with someone whose main line of debate is mischaracterizations, over-generalizations, and deflection through cheesy jokes, insults, and terrible clip-art-ridden power-point shows. Enough said.

As I watched and listened to the 129 minutes of Mr. Hovindâ??s lecture, some things became immediately clear:

I ran across a fascinating article today. The article discusses "Thousands, Not Billions," a new conference coordinated by ICR (Institute for Creation Research).

The purpose of the conference, simply enough, is to challenge the commonly accepted conclusions of scientific research which indicate that the universe is billions of years old, and that evolution is an accurate paradigm through which to describe the development of biological life on earth.To substantiate this "challenge," ICR commissioned its own scientists to conduct research to find proof for a 6,000 year-old earth.

Although I have some strong feelings about it, I will not spend time commenting on the merits of ICR's "scientists," nor of the methodology they employ to arrive at their conclusions (which, interestingly enough, are presupposed). However, I would like to simply outline some thoughts I have on the issues raised in this article, in general.

First of all, let me frame the issue. ICR's website outlines their mission as follows:

We believe God has raised up [Institute for Creation Research] to spearhead biblical Christianity's defense against godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism.Clearly, ICR believes that not only is evolutionary theory illegitimate, but moreover they make it a soteriological issue. In other words, if one happens More >

Recently, I have participated in many discussions regarding the current controversies surrounding "evolution vs. Intelligent design." As I have read, replied and stood back from the discussion to simply observe, I have noticed some interesting things.

Confusion of Terms

On both sides of the issue, there are severe misunderstandings about the terms and definitions which the other side employs. For example, many antagonists of intelligent design (ID) wrongly conflate the same with a rigid, literalistic 6-day, 24-hour interpretation of the Genesis creation accounts. While ID is championed by many who also affirm the literalistic interpretation of Genesis, ID itself cannot be reduced to this. Rather, ID merely states that the complexity of the physical universe which we inhabit is such that it must have been designed by an "intelligent" power, force, etc. However, the identity of this "intelligence" is not necessarily identified, and could range anywhere from an advanced alien intelligence from another universe to a supernatural sweet potato.

Equally, proponents of ID and creationism often make a similar mistake by equating big bang cosmology and biological evolutionary theory with atheism. This, of course, is not surprising, as many of those sympathetic to ID locate the identity of the intelligence More >